Books

Other information on Jo

Speaking

Joanne has given keynote addresses and dinner speeches at national conferences and launches, for groups like CPA’s (Certified Practicing Accountants), Transplant Nurses Association, Aged Care Australia, BDS Accounting, The Australian Science Teachers Association, The Australian Science Festival, ACTEW (ACT Electricity and Water), and Amnesty International.

She’s a specialist on anti-aging, genetics and the future of medicine, as well as on the science of using humour and images to get a message across. Joanne has also performed for over 50,000 students around Australia. The science shows got rave reviews.

On Radio

For two years Joanne talked each week on 2CN in Canberra as well as other stations in country WA, Geelong, Brisbane. In the five minute prime-time spot she discussed the news and science of things like sperm, cooking, health and sleep. Joanne once filled in for the ever popular Dr Karl Kruszelnicki on ABC stations around Australia.

“I always dread any of our regulars going away… If you’re keen to come back it means we can now rest a bit easier next time Karl takes the family back of Bourke. You really excelled at a tough gig.”Jen Oldershaw, Triple J“Should the big fella ever fall under a bus, we’ll be knockin’ at your door….” Craig, Jen’s producer

On Television

Joanne hosted the first series of Y?, a children’s science program. The 65 episodes of ‘Y?’ screened on Channel 9 at 4 p.m. each day from Nov 1999 to Feb 2000. In the studio Joanne did everything from popping lids off tins, to making slime with laundry cleaners, as well as research and scripting. Joanne has also been a guest on Good News Week, and worked for a while on TV1′s Space Cadets — Foxtel’s sci-fi lovers show. She has been a guest on Midday and 11AM.

Qualifications

Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades and both the FH Faulding, and The Swan Brewery Prizes, at the University of Western Australia. She majored in Microbiology, Molecular Biology and doing honours research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communication from the ANU, and worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program at the Australian National University.

If you want to get a message to Jo it’s best to email joanne “AT” joannenova.com.au

56 comments to Other information on Jo

Would you be able to do a follow-up story on the Thompsons Story? It turns out that the judge that made the ruling in the Federal Court of WA, and dismissed our request for leave to file our case against DEC was the founder of the group EDO in Western Australia. This group campaigned against them, and has very very close ties with regulators in DEC.

In making his ruling Justice Barker referred to a decision in the Federal Court in Spencer v. Commonwealth in which the lower court ruled that Peter had no arguable case. This is remarkable because it ignores the fact that the High Court later overturned this ruling. There are several other points in Justice Barker’s ruling in which we believe Justice Barker ignored important evidence in making his decision.

My names is Vanese Mc Neill.
I am in the preliminary stages of working on a proposal for a documentary series for SBS / ABC and in my research I kept ending up on your pages. Finally I stopped to see who you were and it occurred to me that you might be my dream come true. You have done all the research, you are attractive and eloquent. You seem to be passionate about the same issues that I am.

SO i have to at least ask….would you have the time or the inclination to investigate the possibility of playing on at least a proposal for a series, or stand alone doco?

Dear Joanne,
as a frequent reader of your bloog and your amazing handbook I have a question:

Can yout give me information about the financial sources Greenpeace (an other global players) are using or can you give me advice, where I can get those information from!
It would be interesting for me if thoese people receive money from big companies or government institutions in the US, Europa, Australia/New Zealand or elsewhere.

Best wishes Ulrich

—-REPLY: I wish I could. I don’t think those groups give out that information. I trawled annual reports and google searched to get the numbers I got. I noticed for example that the Sierra Club had $1m donors who remained anonymous. I also noticed that Greenpeace were giving out less and less info in recent reports. Good luck. Let me know what you find.

Hi Joanne
For the last 20y, Warmist are wining with lies; Skeptics are constantly using most of the Warmist’ data as factual – then ridiculing the Warmist… Leading Warmist should be in jail, for the damages they have done so-far; instead, most of the Skeptics are dignifying them. (half of the visitors to your website are ‘’pretend Skeptics’’ – imbedded by the Warmist camp. Would you be prepared to have two articles, with real Skeptic’s proofs?

If you want to use the text on my homepage, and the article on methane. Every text on my website is related to the others, but the methane text I am suggesting for few reasons: 1] I believe, you have background in medicine. 2] on your website occasionally methane is misrepresented. 3] in New Zealand they already passed the legislation on methane tax. If my text is on your, well read website – methane tax will be dropped in NZ like hot potato. 4] Because is promoted as 21 times more potent greenhouse gas, by misleading = Julia will never sell one dollar ‘’carbon credit’’ 5] before published my book, I have coined the ‘’permission to fart tax’’ now just got in my email that Moreno in the states is talking about it – here in Australia + NZ, discussion is avoided… 6] lots of millions are squandered in research; to badmouth methane. the real truth is completely opposite.

My proofs are real, that nobody can disprove, it’s ALL proven now. When is proven that the truth is completely opposite – then the Skeptics will be on the front foot. Eminent Warmist that are not benefiting yet from the misleading, will instantly jump ship = that will make the debate much more interesting. People will start talking about bringing the leading Warmist to court of justice, not just looking how to ridicule them. Nobody can find any mistake in what I have – they resort in pointing that English is not my first language. You polish the text in perfect English = the pretend Skeptics will have to face the proofs I have. Please Joanne, you own it to the nation: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com homepage, then page on methane; please, please Joanne. If you read it, you will see the importance and urgency.

I’m not sure if this is the best place to get a message to you but I have just come across something that I think needs some follow up and I couldn’t think of any other way of drawing attention to it.

Over the weekend there was a story on the Cartaret Islands on the SBS Thalassa programme. The item was the usual discussion of how the west needs to save the islanders from the evils of global warming etc. This show wasn’t the thing that disturbed me, that came later when I was amusing myself and doing a little research on the islands and ended up at Wikipedia. I was most disturbed to read the Cartaret Island entry, it appears to have been completely, and somewhat crudely rewritten to virtually eliminate any discussion of the islands sinking and attempting to attribute all the problems to rising sea levels alone. I’m fairly certain there used to be a reasonable article in Wikipedia before. The current article has some very poor statements with no attribution at all.
It really needs someone with the appropriate skills to edit it. Although I am a geologist this is out of my field of expertise.

Cheers

———-

Grahame: Best to pick an active thread so your comment email will go out to many… Look for William Connolly in the edits of the page. Jo

Hi Jo, saw you on TV last night.
I don’t care to much about the climate debate, it is not the subject that concerns me, but that which underlies the argument that has prompt me to write this email.

I have always been part of the “Silent Majority”.
I now feel it is about time to speak up, because I believe we are coming to an impasse.

Mass Hysteria & Social Upheaval.

There was a book published around 80 years ago, a best seller in its country of origin, it adorned the coffee table of every “en-lighted progressive thinker” of the time. If you removed its name, the author and a small amount of its content, the “en-lighted progressive thinkers”, the “Social revolutionists”, the “Environmental activists”, the “World government proponents”, the “Liberal Media” or any other group that wants to control other people for what ever reason they decide, they would say “yes this is what we are saying”. Because what these very people are saying today, is the manifestation of the very idealogical premise of this book. It was taken in and believed by the country of its birth on mass. It was taken on and advocated by the intellectuals (Philosophically, anti-intellectuals) of the western world of the time.

A few drowned out voices of the time, saw the book for what it was worth, but it was too little, too late. The books ideology had infested the masses. It had done its job. It had intellectually lobotomized the free thinking individuals and turned them on to themselves. And the few brave ones who spoke out against this ideal where either ostracize, jailed or killed.

The author, when he was in a position to manifest this ideology into reality, was responsible for some of the greatest and most hideous evil crimes against humanity in modern history and the death of over 350 millions humans. The base premise of this book (doctrine) was for the individual to sacrifice there views, ideas, values, lifestyle, life for the greater good (what ever the group decided that may be), and the individuals that disagreed with such a sacrifice where actually labeled the evil ones. How elegantly expert this person was at turning the table, he was a master with the masses. Not unlike some we have around today.

You may well have worked it out by now, the book is Mein Kampf (My Struggle), the author was Hitler.

Time life magazines 1938 Man of the Year. He mesmerized and conned an intelligent nation. When all along his evil doctrine was there in black and white.
The subjects have changed today, but it underlying philosophical overtones are the same. These are the deep down true motivator of humans. This is why there is such a polarization of opinions on many subjects these days. They are not arguing the subject, they are arguing for a deeper philosophical stand point that they are not even aware of. Any wonder that there is more time spent arguing than finding solutions, if in fact a solution is required. And this underlying philosophical polarization; Control Vs Freedom.

Control Mentality- Humans are evil and immoral and (ironically) need to be controlled by another small group of people who for some deluded reason think they are their moral superiors. See Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Dictatorships, radical groups & movements, and to a fair extent most governments in power today. Self sacrifice is there war cry, Altruism there banner, and anti-intellectualism there sword.

Freedom Mentality- Humans are basically good (moral) and left to there own devices will do what is right for themselves and their fellow human beings. Free systems work best when they are not manipulated by people in a position to do so, such as in governments controlling economies.
There is a caveat here: Freedom is not the freedom to usurp another’s freedoms, as is done in the Control Mentality, which is part of its very nature.

80 years has past since Mein Kampf was the mass doctrine of the times, almost a human life time, four generations have been born and grown to there various stages. Only the diminishing remains of one of those generations has direct experience of the hell created by a philosophical ideology that has proven itself as pure evil.

Is it intellectual naivety or anti-intellectual malevolence that leads to this situation? I think it is ignorance rather than evil that entice people into this viewpoint, but there are some who know exactly what there doing.

We are at a crisis point. You worried about global warming? Its effects are nothing to what is just around the corner. Worried about the future of your children? Well take the blindfold off and stand up against this evil that dominated the world 80 years ago and is again raising its ugly head. The world right now needs people to think for themselves. Because once this philosophical ideology of anti-intellectualism gains its momentum, it is a force beyond control, and the human race will be plunged into a hell previously unseen in modern history. With this ideal & our present technology, around 2017 could be a very ugly place on planet earth.

Don’t believe me, a bit over the top? This did happen. I am asking people to test for themselves, use that gray matter that you have been blessed with. Read Mein Kampf, listen to the the mainstream voices of today, use your own brain, and prepared to be shocked.
Regards Jon

The 43rd Parliament of Australia disempowered the democracy of the Australian Electorate until the next Election not due until 30 November 2013. Prior to the 2010 Election 96% of the present members of the House of Representatives either promised, pledged or said ‘no carbon tax’. When the PM tabled the bills for a Carbon Tax the Opposition should have walked out of the Parliament because the Parliament has no authority from the Electorate for a Carbon Tax. The Members and Senators of the Parliament of Australia are the servants of the Electorate, elected to legislate the MANDATES of the electorate. NO MANDATE from the Electorate NO LEGISLATION by the Parliament. The PM and her Minority Government, Greens and Independents disempowered the Democracy of the Electorate with the passing of legislation for a carbon tax. The Opposition became complicit in this disempowerment by continuing to sit in the Parliament.
The Australian Constitution Section 59 gives The Queen the power to disallow the legislation for a carbon tax. The people’s call on The Queen to use her Section 59 power at http://bit.ly/carbontaxpetition is the only means of returning democracy to the 43rd Parliament of Australia. Think of the damage being done by this Minority Government, Greens and Independents to the Democracy (now disempowered), Society (loss of freedom of speech, same sex marriage) and Economy (the carbon tax and other taxation). The Queens use of this power will give notice to this and future Parliaments to only legislate the mandates of the Electorate. Please see the Aussies versus Brits DEMOCRACY OLYMPICS (see the Video on the carbontaxaustralia channel on YouTube.) C’mon Aussies call on The Queen to give us back our Democracy.
Yours sincerely
Derek Smith

Always love your work! Did you see this one about Big Money and faux global warming? In Obama’s prison nation (the US has more prisoners, total and as a percentage than any other country in the world), as http://freebeacon.com/green-energy-gulag points out, ““The Obama administration is using prison labor to advance its green energy agenda, enriching foreign companies and some of the president’s largest campaign donors in the process. Federal Prison Industries, most commonly known by the trade name UNICOR, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Department of Justice. Established by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934, UNICOR was intended as a voluntary work-training program for federal inmates. It has recently gone into business supplying federal agencies with green energy technology such as solar panels. Hundreds of federal inmates earn between $0.23 and $1.15 per hour manufacturing solar panels at UNICOR facilities in New York and Oregon. The panels are then sold to a variety of government agencies, which are obligated by law to purchase them…..”

Jo,
A popular putdown of negative reports is “they aren’t climatologists”, as though that settled it.
While not going as far a Rutherford’s ‘all science is physics, everything else is stamp collecting.” it would be a good idea to turn the heat up on the ‘not climatologist’s’ claim.
The root of the AGW is the ‘greenhouse’ theory, and the ‘forcing’ theory.
All climate models are based on accepting this.
Both theories have little or no physics in support.
If the theories are contradicted by physics, that is the end of it. Climatologists will admit this.

Jo- I really hope this gets to you (seems to be a common theme here) I wanted to thank you for your “Skeptics Handbook” when I started my film project it was a hugely valuable resource for information, I hope you aprove of my project and get a chance to check out the results:

Producers “The Boy Who Cried Warming”

The producers of “The Boy Who Cried Warming” would like to personally invite you to check out the newest documentary on Global Warming at http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com. We are pleased to currently have over 10,000 views due solely to a grassroots campaign of bloggers and other climate skeptic concerned citizens spreading the word about the film! We invite you to join our campaign and check out the site and please feel free to post a review of the film and tell us what you think. The film is released in its entirety for free, though donations are accepted and will be used to promote the film, it is our desire to reach as large an audience as possible and spread the message that the science is not settled. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns, and as always…

Just to correct grumpydenier publicly, he claimed that the 0.2 degree warming per decade has not occurred. From 1980 to 2010, the global anomalous temperature has gone from -0.24 to 0.21. That’s pretty much 0.2 per decade, if you hadn’t noticed. [http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl]

The lack of facts make your arguments laughable, I feel sorry for all of you in a way. Why can’t any of you present evidence that is from reputable sources? (i.e. not Watts, not Jo Nova and not any other politically funded blogsite)

Can you please read around the debate, other than these scientifically illiterate Heartland institute funded sites.

(Edited by author 10 minutes ago)

He has been ask to provide evidence or risk being accused of libel. Any thoughts? I contacted Piers Corbin a couple of days ago after another troll tried similar tactics.

Do scan your Website from time to time. You expose scams well BUT as a geological scientist I believe that mankind cannot keep polluting in all forms (Poisons, aerosols, waste water, carbon dioxide etc. etc.). What we have to do intelligently is solve problems as they arise (but it seems CFC’s being replaced with something even more dangerous). In the case of carbon dioxide we as a society do not really understand the impact but we cannot continue to burn the three biggest carbon sinks in the world , the Carboniferous, Permian and Tertiary coal measures. But intermittent, unreliable and expensive solar and wind is not the way to go. Natural Gas is at least 50% of coal and often that does not include the CO2 originally found with the gas. Mankind may well invent a new base-load alternative to coal but it’s out there and at least 50 years away from helping. We have to go Nuclear and fast. The Westinghouse AP1000 Nuclear Plant can be in modular form with passive safety system. I believe enough talk has been done that I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is and stand in the next Federal Election. Your support would be welcomed.

Where 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs standing against Global Warming.

Cheers Steven Camilleri

(It has been posted here in this blog a number of times,and hotly attacked by warmists who comment here) CTS

[Thanks Steven, it is indeed an excellent survey. Done by volunteers and done twice. The supporters of AGW found reasons to mock the first one, they found a few fake names. But no one really has any criticism of the second version. Art Robinson did an amazing job to produce it. - Jo]

Jo writes that “no one really has any criticism of the second version.” I’m afraid that this isn’t correct.

First, the Global Warming Petition Project’s claimed that anyone with a BSc degree in a number of fields was qualified to “evaluate the research data.” The problem is that anyone with a BSc degree, even if that person had never read a single climate-related study, meets the GWPP’s criteria. For example, a stay-at-home parent who has never studied climate and never worked as a scientist after graduating with a chemistry degree is considered qualified according to the GWPP’s standards. This is obviously absurd.

Second, if we accept the GWPP’s absurd criteria, then there are over 12 million Americans who meet the criteria according to the US Department of Education graduation data for the years 1970 through 2013. That’s only one quarter of one percent (0.25%), which is a tiny minority.

Third, the GWPP is still a tiny minority if we instead compare signatures to the total number of people working in the GWPP’s selected fields in 2013. In this case it’s less than one half of one percent (0.44%) of the people employed in those fields according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Fourth, if we compare the GWPP signatures to the current membership of the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society, or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the same is again true – no more than about 10% of any one of these groups, and more likely no more than about 5%, is represented by the GWPP signatures. And that’s giving the GWPP the most favorable assumptions possible.

Finally, the GWPP is a petition, not a survey. A petition tells you “N people agree with statement X” but is not statistically valid and says nothing about a broader population. A survey is a statistical measurement of the opinions of a population and comes with error estimates, confidence levels, response rates, and reports all the answers, not just the ones that you agree with. Robinson has explicitly refused to say what his response rate was. So please don’t confuse the two.

Anyone trained in a science degree can understand the basic scientific case. The laws of physics are the same regardless of the field. If climate scientists can’t convince nuclear physicists, astronauts and surgeons, is that because climate scientists have a special super intelligence, or is it because their case is shot with holes?

Skeptics can name more scientists than believers can name. Skeptical scientists far outrank believers in terms of their contributions to the world of science. (Climate scientists have failed models and a peace prize, but real scientists got astronauts to the moon and have physics prizes.) Furthermore skeptics are more independent, having usually got no vested interest in the results either way.

That said, just because we outrank and outnumber believers and have little motivation to sign up to a petition, other than because we disagree, does not prove anything about the science debate. Only the evidence matters, which is why believers cling to a false consensus.

The fact is, there is no consensus of scientists, and it’s false to claim there is. 48% of meteorolgoists disagree with the IPCC for goodnesssake.

There is only a consensus among government employed climate scientists. Why don’t you start writing that accurately?

Global Warming is caused by people like you! Everyday living is destructive to the Environment. One of the most important ways people can help save the environment is to STOP HAVING BABIES. Another very important thing you can do is to euthanize your pet. Our company sells Carbon Credits which are the only hope of saving the planet.

This website is confusing and propaganda to say the least. You could at least provide a balanced, scientific discussion on the issues you raise rather than your adopted, ‘this is how it is’ approach.

Also why are you posting so much about Climate Change and politics? Don’t you specialize in genetics? Can you please show me some papers you publish in regards to climate science or politics? If not then your science expertise counts for nothing in these fields. Sounds like your on the same side as climate change deniers, perhaps they fund your research….oh anti-ageing, yeah sounds about right.

Another so called humanitarian who overlooks and doesn’t understand our dependence on the natural systems of Earth….symptomatic of arrogant human behavior. You post a picture of a rock pool so that means you must like nature right? That might be your ‘nice spot’ but many other peoples ‘nice spots’ are disappearing all around the world.[Do you want to discuss propaganda? Or do you want to discuss empirical science - science based on measurement, experiment, and observation - rather than opinion based on man-made computer models? We have a couple of people here who have worked in the field of Government propaganda, and we have lots of real scientists and real engineers. We also have a few reformed modellers. Where would you like to start?] -Fly

You could at least provide a balanced, scientific discussion on the issues you raise rather than your adopted, ‘this is how it is’ approach.

John, I do — on speculative scientific papers see eg here. But after 1200 articles here, we have covered some ground to death, and after their findings are replicated and coherent (or egregiously, obviously bad), it would be artificial, even dishonest to not tell it like it is.

You are welcome (like thousands of others) to post evidence that disagrees with anything I write.

As for “genetics training” — the news is that science is science — the principles, the practice, laws of logic and reason and statistical analysis are the same — no matter the field.

Please show me where you have demanded Al Gore post papers on politics and climate?

If you think that people who question the feedbacks in climate models are not allowed to “like” the environment you are in a very strange place indeed. I put it to you, that some people wear their fake concern as a meaningless badge to prove their social “virtue”. Are you one? If you are truly concerned about the environment and the poor, you would be concerned about the evidence for assumptions about upper tropospheric water vapor in climate models. You would be concerned the “best” scientists talk about using tricks to hide declines. You would be aghast, that the same scientists will not reveal their data.

As far as I can tell, only skeptical souls care enough about the environment to question their own assumptions and demand the best evidence.

Has The UK Had Exceptional Winter Rainfall Or Is It Just Weather As Normal?
By oldgifford on March 13, 2014 |

The BBC Horizon programme on ‘Global Weirding’
Horizon say: “Something weird seems to be happening to our weather – it appears to be getting more extreme.

The BBC reports:
Dame Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist, said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms. “But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added. “There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

“We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this,” she said. “We have seen some exceptional weather. We can’t say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional.”

As a manufacturing engineer I was introduced to the wonderful world of control charts so I have constructed these to see if our current winter UK rainfall was exceptional.

The ASQ (American Society for Quality) suggests these criteria for an out of control process:

A single point outside the control limits.
Two out of three successive points are on the same side of the centreline and farther than 2s
Four out of five successive points are on the same side of the centreline and farther than 1s
A run of eight in a row are on the same side of the centreline.
Obvious consistent or persistent patterns that suggest something unusual about your data and your process.

When we look at the graphs below we see that in 2014 we have one point outside the Upper Control Limit, but looking at the previous years we see that the system was very much in control, the rainfall figures bouncing around the average, so is the Met Office basing its comments on a single data point? The figures also suggest that the period 1909 to 1930 was one of the most consistently wettest periods.

Nick, you will get more response to this on a different thread. It doesn’t really belong here. Can you repost this? – Jo

Early on in this AGW issue I was challenged by the CO2 concentrations being measured in ppmv, by volume, while all of the emissions are measured in E9 tonnes. Eventually I converted ppmv to equivalent ppmw based on the ratios of the molecular weights. Since the GHGs tend to be heavier than air, ppmw for CO2 is 150% of ppmv. In a footnote AR5 states that the ppms in the report are based on molecular weights, i.e. ppmw. I don’t know if this is change from previous reports & don’t really have the resources to investigate that question, but somebody out there might. This change would make all of AR5’s ppms based on molecular weights look much larger in comparison to past ppms based on volume.

I’ll put in some sort of response. So far, up here in NQ, there has been little interest in subsidy farms.
The only turbines I have seen are the type that can be packed flat on the ground when the cyclones come.
AIMS at Cape Ferguson asked SLR the environmental engineers if wind turbines were viable. AIMS is the size of a small township, Cape Ferguson sticks up above the shore and would have almost constant winds off the Pacific.
SLR’s verdict – don’t bother.

Joanne, Thanks as always for keeping us informed. Had you come across an innovation whereby CO2 and Water are being synthesised under concentrated sunlight into Producer gas (?) which is then “Fischer Tropsch’d” into Kero and Jet fuel? Seems like a real goer to me.

I love your blog. I learn something every time I check in. I applaud you for fighting the fight. One thing though, could you get your web techs to turn off autoplay on the videos? It’s pretty disturbing when my Mac shouts at me when I open your page and i have had the volume turned up for something else.
Keep up the good work. The world needs you.
john

Hi
Just new to your sight. A treasure trove to be sure. I have a medical degree but a large interest in economics. For years I intuitively knew there was something wrong with global warming theory. Now this just makes so much sense. A bit of “light bulb” moment. David’s new theory is blowing me away.
Can you please consider adjusting you tip jar to take Bitcoin?[I am holding this in moderation for Jo to see -Fly][Thanks Fly, and Thanks John. I shall have to look into the Bitcoin tip jar. I'm not sure why I haven't got organised before... Cheers! Jo]

I noticed in the Skeptic’s handbook “Satellites circling the planet twice a day…”. This is not accurate. The satellite temperature record derives from measurements made from satellites such as Aqua which is in low earth orbit, circling the globe every 99 minutes or so. Apologies if this has been pointed out earlier.

Woo Hoo!! Another tiny crack has just appeared. A piece in Nature by some German Institute for Sustainability and such says that CO2 is NOT that important in the wider sense.
I remember the London SMOG. That was solved within a year or too, as it was just the particle pollution from the open coal fires we all used in the 40s/50s. Same applies I guess to Beijing.
Thanks for all your dedication ..and a good read!

Earlier you ran a story which included praise for the Shoalhaven Council in not giving in to alarmist sea-level rises.

You also published an assessment of the ridiculous consultant’s report which tried to persuade the Councillors.

The attempt by the staff of the Council failed.

Now they are back again to try to get a reversal of the decision.

They are pinning their hopes on an internal legal opinion which essentially threatens the Council that if they don’t adopt the highest levels suggested by the IPCC then the council would find itself facing million in damages for breaching duty of care, acting in bad faith and other things.

The meeting is on next Tuesday and today is Friday 6th.

A reversal would be a huge feather in the cap of greens everywhere.

I am one of the councillors. I was a lawyer until retirement. I can handle most of it, but any assistance you can give would be greatly appreciated.

The consultant’s report was reviewed by a number of American scientists and you published that review. If you could give me the reference that would be a big help in itself.

Two links.
1) http://dropcanvas.com/#prs0BUH89WTSXT
The second document of this link is in english: Climate: 22 Inconvenient Truths. It is the first part of the whole document (with a 57 pages technical annex), that is under translation and will be available at the beginning of March (I hope). When available, I will give the link to you.

In France, because of the next COP21, the propaganda in favour of the GIEC thesis is amazing… No criticism on the media… Only one voice! Terrific!

jipebe – we won’t open unknown documents. Please provide a site with a html link, or some other method of communication. We can’t afford to click on links that may contain malware. Sorry! Emailing word .doc documents is probably the best. Thanks – Jo

The rise of the oceans levels is constant for a long time. The data from satellites are “harmonized”, and then their credibility is poor. The best mean to measure a sea level is tide gauge.
Nevertheless, the main conclusion is that there is no terrific acceleration of the see level rise, the rise is constant, and there is no scientific reason for an acceleration.

My opinion: with a rise of 2mm/Year (the more credible value) the rise will be only of 172 mm in 2100.
No Panic is required, and the IPCC claims are propaganda.

Russ, this is interesting, but will likely get no response on this old silent page. Perhaps you could make it on a current thread? – Jo
I read your intro article with 10 points for newbies.

You could also include the fact that co2 levels were 10-20 times higher hundreds of millions of years ago that todays levels but the Earth still went into a full Ice Age back then.

Rolf Witzsche has produced some interesting videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqLIPTnQK-g -about the Electric Sun in which he thinks there are very long galactic cycles of plasma fields that influence the nuclear activity on the surface of the sun and hence the solar out put. These long cycles correlate to the length of ice ages and he thinks we are on the verge of the next ice age in 30 years. The Ulysses space craft between 1998 and 2008 showed the Solar Wind declined by 25% which is significant, the solar wind is like the steam coming out of a pot of water, if you turn the heat down less steam or solar wind comes out and if the trend between 1998 and 2008 is still happening then that would be at least 40% less out put now and eventually if it gets low enough the ‘primer fields’ of the Sun will collapse and the Sun will go into a cold stage leading to an output of about 30% (30% is the output of the dark plasma under the sunspots) of normal output – this of course would cause a full ice age to start. He believes we have 30 years before the next ice age starts, the inter-glacial period we are in is now long in the tooth and we are over due for an ice age by about 500 years. He also thinks we should build floating cities and farmland in the tropical areas of the ocean so we can produce food enough to feed 7 billion people other wise there is going to be mass starvation once the ice age starts and the grain growing areas of the world become frozen. This means the attention and money being paid towards the AGW or CAGW are a diversion from the real danger our civilization is facing.

“Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.”[Thank you for the tip, Michael. Jo is unlikely to see this, where it is, so I am holding it in the moderation half-way-house, to ensure that she does] Fly[Michael, I've posted on it. Thanks! See here -- Jo]

I read in todays Sunday Times (4th Oct) an article about David’s mathematical analysing of CC. I’m not qualified to make comment on his thoughts, so I won’t. But I’m always interested to hear the various approaches to what our climate may (or may not) be doing, and why this is so.
My talents are more on the humour side of things, as I’m a freelance cartoonist.

Occasionally, I create a cartoon associated with the climate (or science) and politics.

Here’s a link to some of these on my blog. Hope they get your day off to a good start……

Here is a copy of my letter to the president of the Royal Australian College of Physicians – Please do not hesitate to contact me if you want further backstory or information.

14 October 2015

Professor —redacted—(President Elet RACP),

Thank you for your correspondence dated 14 October, in which you address some of the concerns I have about the RACP Climate Change Committee.

You fail to address questions relating to the composition of the current committee and whether or not I will be forwarded minutes of the meetings. I have not had response to a separate submission where I am seeking to put forward a competitive committee examining the futility of action on climate change as well as a counter intellectualism culture within the college.

I am unsure whether Dr —redacted— is to make a further response to any of the other issues raised. I will henceforth address correspondence to you and Dr —redacted— in order to reduce confusion.

totschweigetaktik

…’’death by silence’’ is… ‘‘an astonishingly effective tactic for killing off creative work or fresh ideas or even news stories. You don’t criticise or engage with what’s being said or produced or expressed; instead you deprive someone and their work or opinion of the oxygen of attention’’ (Miranda Devine)

You have stated:

“However, given the fundamentally divergent approaches, I respectfully suggest that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue and therefore there is little value in corresponding further.”

I think there is lots of value in corresponding further. You and your colleagues have not at all considered any of the ideas I have put forward. Given time and proper consideration, I have no doubt that you will come to see the irrefutable logic of the competing point of view – which you may characterise as “lukewarmist” if you choose.

If you seek to quash discussion, which is not the tradition of scientific discussion (except in its malpractice), you will need to be much more direct.

You might need to say something along the lines:

“Given the fundamentally divergent approaches, as the President of the Royal Australian College of Physicians, I forbid any further engagement from any Skeptics of the Doctrine of Catastrophic Climate Change with any representative of the College.”

If this is a more accurate assessment of your position – please be forthright enough to say it.

The conclusion “we will have to agree to disagree” is a nasty silencing tactic. When you say this, in effect you are saying “I am happy that my position will continue to be advocated, and too bad about yours”.

I do not agree with your position, and furthermore believe that further disagreement is necessary, because your position is likely to cause harm. For example; if your position is allowed to stand unchallenged, government may be more likely to give subsidies to corn derived ethanol – leading to food riots in Haiti.

I believe that further clarification is required and desirable, as a better outcome is likely to emerge with full exposition of the factual basis of the competing positions. I do expect my arguments to win.

I note that no effort has been made to examine or engage any of the tentative criticisms of your position that I have put forward.

I recognise your indifference to the idea that the College may be an institute where scientific ideas can be discussed.

You state:

“The College recognises your disappointment that its policy agenda related to climate change and health takes a different view to yours on the issue of climate change.”

Has any alternative had been discussed or considered? Is it my opinion or do lots of other reputable sources share similar concerns? Is it already decided that the current position is unquestionable?

And please do not patronise me as being “disappointed”. “Livid” would be a better description.

I do accept that everyone else within the college couldn’t be bothered about arguing this point. This does not bother me. It does bother me that there appears to be such a concerted effort to suppress any discussion. It does also bother me that a group of partisan sympathisers can so easily take over a college committee.

You state:

“CPAC’s decision is not to engage in the environmental science, but rather to focus on the demonstrable health impacts and opportunities associated with climate change.”

This is currently not true. The College has a position on this which clearly references the “97% consensus argument”. This I have mentioned before. Briefly it concludes that there is consensus that the science surrounding anthropogenic global warming is settled. I have argued that science is never a popularity contest, never settled, and that selecting a sample that supports your hypothesis, without considering the totality of the literature is rubbish science.

If it has not been fully established whether the temperature is going to go up or down in the future, and no consideration has been given to the cost of acting on climate change, I think that this venture is worthless.

At some point there will need to be some reference to whether or not climate change is in fact predictable, and worth consideration and action. The College might choose to say that it accepts the IPCC fifth assessment report – this would be manifestly biased – at which point it becomes clear that there is a political rather than scientific agenda. There may be some new computer model that can actually predict what temperatures will be – this will be at least ten years down the track. These are two examples of possible alternative justifications for creation of a basis of a discussion – it is unlikely that there will be scientific certainty with either scenario – or indeed any conceivable scenario.

Alternatively, the College might start by saying that there is no consensus about the magnitude or direction of global temperatures in the near future – this is a reasonable assessment of the current state of climate prediction. Having reached that assessment, it might be best to make no further recommendations on the issue. This is a reasonable interpretation of the current level of climate science that deserves consideration.

If the College truly chooses not to engage in environmental science, then there should be enough internal consistency that there will be no pronouncements about reducing CO2 emissions, or economic interventions to switch to “more bicycle riding for inner city hipsters.” Indications from current correspondence is that this is not the perspective of the current committee.

It can easily be argued from a “bottom up” approach on this issue: this argument has been formulated before by others and proposes that any attempt to mitigate the effects of climate change is likely to cause more economic harm than to have a robust developed society that is more able to adapt to any unpredictable changes in climate in future years. I have mentioned it in previous correspondence to Dr —redacted—.

That is to say, if you arbitrarily refuse to engage in any discussion on whether or not the “science is settled”, which is reprehensible, there is excellent grounds to argue that action on climate change is likely to cause more harm than good even if one is forced to accept the assumption that there will be 2 degrees of warming within the next 100 years.

Additionally (for the third time):

In previous correspondence I have requested a breakdown of the current RACP Working Party on Climate Change in relation to “geographic location, gender and physician practice to promote diversity” – which is apparently part of the selection procedure. Could you please provide this.

In previous correspondence I have requested copies of the minutes of the Working Party’s meetings – could this be provided please.

“use evidence as the basis for making decisions. Make findings of fact based on evidence. Where there is conflicting evidence, make findings of fact on the balance of probabilities – that is, taking into account all of the relevant evidence, this particular fact is more likely to be proved than not;”
Guidelines for Proper Decision Making for College Committees (RACP)

There are several unanswered questions in the above correspondence to which I would ordinarily expect a response. Additionally you might explain why you directed me to address further questions to –redacted— who has not returned any of my calls, and is manifestly the wrong person to deal with these questions.

Jo, how do I contribute/inform? I do not have your email. I copied and pasted that below, the “skeptics” are based in New York state (US) and some of their new fellows are a bunch of climate alarmists from Australia. It is appalling what has happened to the critical thinking movement. It only goes as far as climate change and then one must be a warmunist, apparently.

==========

Meet the New Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

The fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry represent the best of skepticism, critical thinking, and the promotion of science. They include such world-renowned luminaries of science and scholarship as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Ann Druyan, James Randi, and many others, each chosen as fellows for their distinguished contributions to science and skepticism.

This year, the Executive Council of CSI has elected ten new fellows, as well as four new scientific and technical consultants, each a true standout in their respective field for their dedication to the advocacy of skepticism, science, and reason.

The newly elected Fellows are:

• John Cook, Climate Communication fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

• Krista Federspiel, medical journalist and author based in Vienna.

• Julia Galef, president and cofounder of the Center for Applied Rationality.

• Stephan Lewandowsky, cognitive psychologist in the School of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.

• Paul Offit, MD, co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, author of Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine and Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine.

Fellow readers here may find it sad that this fiction is being pushed onto gullible people. On a previous instance I was unable to post any response on to their website and I have not bothered this time but others may feel led to do so.
Stevo.